These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33556294)

  • 1. Incorporating aspects of programmatic assessment into examinations: Aggregating rich information to inform decision-making.
    Pearce J; Reid K; Chiavaroli N; Hyam D
    Med Teach; 2021 May; 43(5):567-574. PubMed ID: 33556294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Shaping the right conditions in programmatic assessment: how quality of narrative information affects the quality of high-stakes decision-making.
    de Jong LH; Bok HGJ; Schellekens LH; Kremer WDJ; Jonker FH; van der Vleuten CPM
    BMC Med Educ; 2022 May; 22(1):409. PubMed ID: 35643442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The potential use of Bayesian Networks to support committee decisions in programmatic assessment.
    Zoanetti N; Pearce J
    Med Educ; 2021 Jul; 55(7):808-817. PubMed ID: 33151589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. How do examiners decide?: a qualitative study of the process of decision making in the oral examination component of the MRCGP examination.
    Yaphe J; Street S
    Med Educ; 2003 Sep; 37(9):764-71. PubMed ID: 12950938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. On the issue of costs in programmatic assessment.
    van der Vleuten CP; Heeneman S
    Perspect Med Educ; 2016 Oct; 5(5):303-7. PubMed ID: 27638392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Shadow systems in assessment: how supervisors make progress decisions in practice.
    Castanelli DJ; Weller JM; Molloy E; Bearman M
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2020 Mar; 25(1):131-147. PubMed ID: 31485893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Examiners' decision-making processes in observation-based clinical examinations.
    Malau-Aduli BS; Hays RB; D'Souza K; Smith AM; Jones K; Turner R; Shires L; Smith J; Saad S; Richmond C; Celenza A; Sen Gupta T
    Med Educ; 2021 Mar; 55(3):344-353. PubMed ID: 32810334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Blended programmatic assessment for competency based curricula.
    Mahajan R; Saiyad S; Virk A; Joshi A; Singh T
    J Postgrad Med; 2021; 67(1):18-23. PubMed ID: 33533748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A Windows-based tool for the study of clinical decision-making.
    Mackel JV; Farris H; Mittman BS; Wilkes M; Kanouse DE
    Medinfo; 1995; 8 Pt 2():1687. PubMed ID: 8591547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Twelve Tips for programmatic assessment.
    Van Der Vleuten CPM; Schuwirth LWT; Driessen EW; Govaerts MJB; Heeneman S
    Med Teach; 2015 Jul; 37(7):641-646. PubMed ID: 25410481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The impact of programmatic assessment on student learning: theory versus practice.
    Heeneman S; Oudkerk Pool A; Schuwirth LW; van der Vleuten CP; Driessen EW
    Med Educ; 2015 May; 49(5):487-98. PubMed ID: 25924124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Stakes in the eye of the beholder: an international study of learners' perceptions within programmatic assessment.
    Schut S; Driessen E; van Tartwijk J; van der Vleuten C; Heeneman S
    Med Educ; 2018 Jun; 52(6):654-663. PubMed ID: 29572920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Student progress decision-making in programmatic assessment: can we extrapolate from clinical decision-making and jury decision-making?
    Tweed M; Wilkinson T
    BMC Med Educ; 2019 May; 19(1):176. PubMed ID: 31146714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Programmatic assessment: the process, rationale and evidence for modern evaluation approaches in medical education.
    van der Vleuten C; Lindemann I; Schmidt L
    Med J Aust; 2018 Nov; 209(9):386-388. PubMed ID: 30376659
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Twelve tips for embedding assessment
    Swan Sein A; Rashid H; Meka J; Amiel J; Pluta W
    Med Teach; 2021 Mar; 43(3):300-306. PubMed ID: 32658603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. What is being assessed in the MRCGP oral examination? A qualitative study.
    Simpson RG; Ballard KD
    Br J Gen Pract; 2005 Jun; 55(515):430-6. PubMed ID: 15970066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Enhancing the defensibility of examiners' marks in high stake OSCEs.
    Shulruf B; Damodaran A; Jones P; Kennedy S; Mangos G; O'Sullivan AJ; Rhee J; Taylor S; Velan G; Harris P
    BMC Med Educ; 2018 Jan; 18(1):10. PubMed ID: 29304806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Medical specialist examinations: item format types and minimising error.
    Jones RW
    Anaesth Intensive Care; 2007 Feb; 35(1):80-5. PubMed ID: 17323671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Programmatic assessment: Can we provide evidence for saturation of information?
    de Jong LH; Bok HGJ; Kremer WDJ; van der Vleuten CPM
    Med Teach; 2019 Jun; 41(6):678-682. PubMed ID: 30707848
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Beyond assessment of learning toward assessment for learning: educating tomorrow's physicians.
    Dannefer EF
    Med Teach; 2013 Jul; 35(7):560-3. PubMed ID: 23641918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.